JUDGMENT V.N. Misra, J. - This is an application in revision by Kundan Singh against the judgment and order of Sri K.S. Sukhra, V Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Oral dated 4-3-1981 in Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1980 by means of which he confirmed the conviction of the applicant under section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and maintained the sentence of six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- passed on him by Sri R.A. Katiyar, Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Oral. 2. It was alleged that on 31-3-1979 at about 8 A.M. the applicant was found selling mixed milk of cow and goat near Octroi post on Station Road, Oral. The Food Inspector Sri B.D. Doharey after observing the necessary formalities purchased 7.50 ml. of this milk, sealed it in three clean bottles and one of these when sent to the Public Analyst was found to contain 5.30% of milk fat and 7.2% of non-fatty solids. The non-fatty solids were thus 15% less than the minimum prescribed. Therefore, after obtaining the necessary sanction from the Chief Medical Officer the applicant was prosecuted and has been convicted as aforesaid, 3. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant was that the sanction given in this case for the prosecution of the applicant was only a routine sanction and the Chief Medical Officer did not apply his mind before he gave this sanction. I am unable to accent this because a number of papers were produced before the Chief Medical Officer. There was evidence to show that these papers were produced before him, he made an endorsement on each of these papers and than ultimately he gave the sanction by writing out in his own hand "papers seen. Sanction for prosecution accorded. It is true that this sanction was given on a printed form which was filled up by somebody other than the Chief Medical Officer but since there is a printed form for the purpose it was bound to have been used and because in this case all possible evidence was given to show that the papers were seen and then the sanction was accorded it can not be said that the sanction was merely a routine sanction and the Chief Medical Officer d;d not apply his mind before according this sanction. 4. 4. The second point urged was that this milk was not for sale and the applicant was only taking it to the house of Jamuna Das contractor, who was unwell. The applicant also examined D.W. 1 Mool Chand, the brother of Jamuna Das, who stated that his brother was unwell. Besides, the statement of D.W. 1 Mool Chand there was no other evidence to show that Jamuna Das was really unwell and even if he was unwell and wanted 5.500 lis. of milk the applicant could not have taken 20 Its. of milk in one can and this was obviously not meant for Jamuna Das. The applicant was also seen selling milk at the Tea Stall and, therefore, it cannot he said that this milk was not for sale. 5. This milk when sent to the Public Analyst was found to contain 5.30% milk fat and 7.2% non fatty solids. Thus, the milk fat was in excess of the minimum prescribed in the standard laid down and the non-fatty solids were deficient by 1.3%. I am unable to accept that if no deficiency is found in milk fat then a slight deficiency in non-fatty solids should be condoned and the accused could not be convicted. There is a certain standard prescribed for purity in milk and this standard laid down the percentage of milk fat and the percentage of non-fatty solids which should he found in milk. If, therefore, there is any deficiency either in milk fat or non-fatty solids the milk has to be taken as being adulterated. Besides, it was held in (Puran v. State Criminal Revision No. 2041 of 1972, (1978 (1) FAC 160) that "when milk is stored, the fat contents come to the top as the milk cools and if sample is taken from the top portion without stirring the milk thoroughly, the sample taken will be very high in fat content." It may be for this reason that fat contents in this milk were found to be high but since the non-fatty solids were deficient the milk was certainly adulterated. The deficiency in non-fatty solids was, however, of 1.3% only and was only a marginal deficiency and since the fatty contents of the milk were found to be in excess of the standard prescribed, therefore, it is a very fit case in which benefit should be given to the applicant under the proviso appended to section 16(1) of the Act. 6. While these fore this revision is dismissed and the conviction of the applicant maintained his sentence is reduced to three months' R.I. and the fine is maintained as imposed by the learned Magistrate. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail to serve out his sentence.